We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, March 4. 2014

Some of our readers enjoy Allen's movies. I do. My first date with the future Mrs. BD was to see Sleeper. Does the man have any moral foundation? I doubt it. Talent? Undoubtably. What is wrong with the people in the film biz?

A shrink friend sent me this comment:

“Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Dylan and Truth or truth” (Or, “Would you read this if the title didn’t say “Woody Allen.”)

“Truth is truth,” Paddy Chayefsky stated. If only analysts could have that certitude, lost in the past few decades. Truth is relative, “constructed” in the present (transference), not historically accurate. Historical truth doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter at least. Except if a child was sexually molested: then truth matters, the real thing, what happened, was she or he seduced, assaulted. No “relative” here (for truth).But not a simple matter. Let’s listen to Jean Piaget (more neutral than Woody Allen).

Piaget said that for much of his childhood, he “remembered” that when he was in the pram with his nurse as an infant, he was kidnapped. Then, some years later, his nurse revealed that he had not been kidnapped; she simply hadn’t paid attention and his pram rolled away. He still “felt” that he was kidnapped, even as he learned the historical truth that he hadn’t been.

Now, Allen and Farrow (for this is mostly a tragedy that results from their stunning animosity); their children suffer from what the U.S. Army would call “friendly fire” (about nothing which is friendly when your shot dead). Their young adult adopted daughter is cited by a columnist as an example of someone molested by her father in childhood and the aftereffects into adulthood. But, Allen cites an extensive evaluation at Yale Child Study Center at the time of the alleged molest, that showed that she was likely not molested by father. If they are to believed, if our Yale colleagues are to be trusted to some degree, then we learn at least three things.

First, the now young adulthood victim believes that she was molested; she is a victim of animosity between her parents. Second, we learn respect for the adherence between love and hate (as Freud suggested); how love turns to hate when a “divorce” occurs.

Second, Farrow, married at nineteen to Andre Previn, has such animosity to Allen that she would make enduring accusations at the expense of her children’s well-being (her older son confirms that mother told the children to turn against their father).

And third, perhaps Allen’s last word on this may be dismissed by some.

Perhaps all that is left to us at this point is to recognize that some “truths” are not so relative; ain’t important. Truth about life events can really count. When we work with children molested, helping them recognize the true events of their, to explain why they feel and live the way they do, is one significant factor in this work.

Two parents rain animosity at each other over the decades; their children are shot down in this crossfire.

"Allen cites an exhaustive investigation at Yale Child Study Center," but he leaves a lot out. Even as I read his statement I was alert to what was not being said. I finished it and thought "he is lying by omission." That is a lot of what I do for a living, though. (The rest of the speculation of how a child might come to believe an untruth or a partial truth is just that - speculation. Best not to diagnose Dylan until we have a proven symptom for her, either.)

Those aren't the same thing as guilt. And "guilty of exactly what?" would also be a fair question. Lastly, things believed but not proven have different status than things proven. But whatever else is happening, he's lying. As the post is more about truth than Woody Allen, I think that's an important piece to keep in mind. People can have pieces of the truth, or neglected portions of the truth. Truth is of course relative in that way. But at ground level, no. We think that Dylan and Mia might be lying, and can devise explanations for why.

Shrinks are an untrustworthy sort. So I put very little stock in their opinions. Except as a source of humor. Especially Piaget and his wacky ideas about child development. Woody Allen had a certain amount of talent appealing mostly to the earnest, young, smart set. A talent for humor. Which, if you are fortunate, you graduate from, in time. Graduate to grouchiness, which is just where we all need to be.

I happen to love Woody Allen's films. Always have, even as a kid. Intelligent and introspective humor. He had a dry patch during the late 80s and early 90s, but he's come back strong with some very good films, most notably Match Point and Midnight in Paris.

It was because of Woody that I was introduced to Ingmar Bergman, Sergei Eisenstein, and in Manhattan I fell in love with Rhapsody in Blue, which is still a tune which goes through my head whenever I see the Manhattan skyline.

His early films were a mix of slapstick and highbrow insights on culture and intelligentsia. The scene with him pulling Marshall McLuhan into a discussion in Annie Hall was brilliant, as were the two scenes with Christopher Walken.

But whether Woody is lying matters little to me. It's not my family, and whatever behavior he engaged won't alter how I feel about his films. I still love Chinatown, but I'm happy Roman Polanski won't step foot back in the US.

As for the psychology of the situation, as a child of a bitter divorce, I can think back at the damage that may have been, and in some cases is still being worked out among my siblings. My brother and I, old enough to understand but too young to fully process, muddled through with difficulty. It took years of spending time with my father, who I saw little of in my youth, to finally reach a point of release.

Both sides would launch broadsides, aimed poorly, and designed to seem as if they were looking out for the children's 'best interests'. Neither side cared much about the damage their claims or actions would impart. My mother was a caring and nurturing type, and wonderful in so many ways. Yet she always held a grudge and still does. While she doesn't hold it against the kids, she is always vocal in her dislike of the fact we actually enjoy seeing our father. She tries to sound as if she's happy for us, but there is always the backhanded compliment and the snarky remark.

My father has gotten past that. He realized, at some point which I can't determine, that you can't make everybody happy so he just doesn't worry about it anymore. When he was younger and he felt his income was being wasted or hoarded by my mother (it wasn't) through child support, he was actively lobbying the kids for information. Soon, when the information he hoped for never materialized, he stopped caring about it.

Divorces are sometimes (usually) ugly. Kids can and will get hurt. They can and will make up stories. I know I had a few of my own when I was younger - nothing as substantial as what Woody is accused of, but enough to know that as I got older it was easier to just let it all go and move on.

What I see in the drama here is simply people seeking to place blame for their problems in life. I've got a million problems, but my parents' bitter divorce and the use of us kids as pawns is hardly one of them. I'm more likely to deal with my issues head on than blame someone else and seek some form of retribution.

My ex-wife, god bless her, was absolutely convinced her father had molested her. She had many symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Many shrinks would diagnose her as a victim of abuse and claim her bpd was a result of the abuse.

I, having known her, and having heard her stories realize her accounts of abuse were, in fact, a manifestation of her disorder and not, in fact, the cause of it.

This is a difficult issue. It is not cut-and-dried. Kids can be coached(convinced) they have have been victimized without the reality of such vivtimization.

RE your Woody Allen post - I noticed a common lack of grasp of the English which is common among liberals and recent grads.
It is you're, NOT your. It seems no one can write an acceptable sentence anymore (with exceptions).

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: